Saturday, March 27, 2021

SOUTH ASIA ANALYSIS GROUP

 

The Challenges Facing the World:

Paper No. 6769                       Dated 26- Mar-2021

By Kazi Anwarul Masud:

When one reads V. S. Naipaul or more recent ones one is surprised by the irrelevance we feel about the poverty and inequity we see in the Indian Sub-continent. We feel as if we are born to the discomfort and the inequity by dint of birth( privileges  which one gets through  an accident)  that can be ignored and the poor and hungry littered along the car we travel by is a matter of fact

. Naipaul in his Million Mutunities Now writes: Independence was worked for by people more or less at the top; the freedom it brought has worked its way down.  In India: A wounded Civilization Naipaul writes: “India is old, and India continues. But all the disciplines and skills that India now seeks to exercise are borrowed. Even the ideas Indians have of the achievements of their civilization are essentially the ideas given them by European scholars in the nineteenth century. India by itself could not have rediscovered or assessed its past. Its past was too much with it, was still being lived out in the ritual, the laws, and the magic – the complex instinctive life that muffles response and buries even the idea of inquiry.” Later on his journey to find his roots Naipaul found:

 India was the greater hurt. It was a subject country. It was also the place from whose very great poverty our grandfathers had had to run away in the late nineteenth century. The two India’s were separate. The political India, of the freedom movement, had its great names. The other, more personal India was quite hidden; it vanished when memories faded. It wasn’t an India we could read about. It wasn’t Kipling’s India, or E.M. Forster’s, or Somerset Maugham’s; and it was far from the somewhat stylish India of Nehru and Tagore. (There was an Indian writer, Premchand [1880-1936], whose stories in Hindi and Urdu would have made our Indian village past real to us. But we didn’t know about him; we were not reading people in that way.) It was to this personal India, and not the India of independence and its great names that I went when the time came. I was full of nerves. But nothing had prepared me for the dereliction I saw.

No other country I knew had so many layers of wretchedness, and few countries were as populous. I felt I was in a continent where, separate from the rest of the world, a mysterious calamity had occurred. Yet what was so overwhelming to me, so much in the foreground, was not to be found in the modern-day writing I knew Indian or English. In one Kipling story an Indian famine was a background to an English romance; but generally in both English and Indian writing the extraordinary distress of India, when acknowledged, was like something given, eternal, something to be read only as background. And there were, as always, those who thought they could find a special spiritual quality in the special Indian distress”. Different kind of pictures is printed on the success or otherwise of Modi government in the last year. Understandably rosy picture is painted by the government and supporters of Bharitya Janata Party( BJP) while the opposition and some critics paint a different picture. The Gross Domestic Product at constant (2011-12) prices for the year 2019 was  at Rupees  140.78 lakh crore, as against Rupees 131.80 lakh crore for 2017-18, indicating growth of 6.8 percent during 2018-19. At current prices, GDP for 2018-19 was  Rupees 190.10 lakh crore as against Rupees 170.95 lakh crore for 2017-18, showing an increase of 11.2 percent during the year.  Meaning of Per Capita is the Average income Earned Per Person in the Specified Area ( Eg Country, States, etc). The formula to Calculate Per Capita is the Total income of the Specified Area Divided by the number of Population in that specified area.

Read the Below Article to Get More Information About India Per Capital Income.  Income Per Capita India The per capita real income, i.e. per capita net national income at constant (2011- 12) prices, for 2018-19 is at RS 92,565 as against RS 87,623 for 2017-18. This indicates a growth of per capita real income of 5.6 percent during 2018- 19. The per capita income at current prices during 2018-19 is at RS 1, 26,406 as compared to RS 1, 14,958 in 2017-18 showing a rise of 10.0 percent.     (Yahoo). Modi government does not appear to have succeeded to take Indian economy to a greater plane as promised. Success if it can be termed as such has been in the political arena. BJP has absolute majority in the lower house of parliament (LOK SABHA). So the government could easily passed The Citizens Amendment Act, demolition of special status given to Kashmir since the then Maharaja decided to take Indian help to face the marauders from Pakistan occupied Kashmir. It may be recalled that the Maharajah was called Sadr-e-Riasat similar to the title of the President of Pakistan. In addition to the abolition of the special status of Kashmir Modi government changed the status of Ladakh that opened the door of Chinese incursion across the Line of Actual Control that had been agreed upon by both India and China.

 As regards Kashmir the state is totally cut off from the rest of India. “Under Modi, India appears to have abandoned it’s potential to serve as a global democratic leader, elevating narrow Hindu nationalist interests at the expense of its founding values of inclusion and equal rights for all,” observed Freedom House. Critics have also pointed out that since the imposition of emergency rule by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi never were so many people have been arrested and confined without trial as has been done by the present government.  Confinement of the opposition has never been the answer as history has repeatedly proved. Nor has lack of true understanding of the opponent’s power and determination. Had it not been so then possibly the South Asians would have been speaking German and not English as the main alternate language.

 On the economic front China has done well to say the least. China today is the second largest economy in the world. The Economist (How to deal with China March  20 2021) tells us that            Mainland China attracted $163bn of fresh multinational investment last year, more than any other country. It is opening the mainland capital markets to foreigners, who have invested $900bn, in a landmark shift for global finance.         Moreover, the pull China exerts is no longer just a matter of size—although, with 18% of world gdp, it has that too. The country is also where firms discover consumer trends and innovations. It is increasingly where commodity prices and the cost of capital are set, and is becoming a source of regulations. Business is betting that, in Hong Kong and the mainland, China’s thuggish government is capable of self-restraint in the commercial sphere, providing contractual certainty, despite the lack of fully independent courts and free speech. 

China is struggling with the US for technological development. The Post-Pandemic world is largely believed to be a technological world where not only domestic economies would be guided by technology but spread of foreign influence as well would be bought and sold like commodities. The under developed economies used to foreign assistance (free distribution of covit vaccines may be cited as an example) and despite former US Vice President Mike Pence’s warning of Chinese “debt trap”, Sri Lankan and Laotian examples, and Malaysian Mahathir Mohammed’s refusal to take Chinese assistance South Asian developing nations may have little alternative. One may disagree with John Bolton and Robert Kagan’s uncompromising belief in American supremacy in global affairs the fight with China has to be based on values. India in this region being the super power has to set the example that democracy is the only weapon to fight Xi Jinping’s authoritarian style of governance.

We should remind ourselves that Joseph Stieglitz (The Great Divide 2012) had argued that inequality results from conscious political decisions which results in a world of super-rich, a vanishing middle class and growing poverty. Stieglitz also questioned the efficacy of a government that embraces political capitalism—a system where the rich and the powerful influences government choices that in Hobbesian terminology ends up as being “nasty brutish” and ultimately selfish and protects the interests of their own class.  The growth rate, calculated by Wealth-X, a global financial intelligence and data company, stands at a solid 17.3 percent. If Bangladesh, taken as an example,  had 100 super rich in 2012, for example, the number should have been  219-220 by 2017. In other words, the number of super-rich should have doubled in our country in just five years. At the same time defaulted loans despite easier payment terms accorded to the defaulters has not eased the problem of loan default. Billions of dollars are suspected to have been siphoned off to safe heavens abroad. According to Global Financial Integrity Report 2017, Bangladesh topped the list of least-developed countries in terms of “illicit financial flows”. In 2014 alone, Bangladeshis allegedly laundered USD 9.11 billion to foreign countries. At the end of 2016, the amount of money Bangladeshis deposited with Swiss Banks stood at USD 683 million—near equivalent to the amount deposited by Indians. (Daily Star 20-09-2018).  Truly Joseph Stieglitz’s observation on “A banking system is supposed to serve society, not the other way around” appears to have fallen on deaf ears. 

Going back a few years the Gross  Domestic Product (GDP) in Bangladesh was worth 274.03 billion US dollars in 2018. The GDP value of Bangladesh represents 0.44 percent of the world economy. GDP in Bangladesh averaged 53.02 USD Billion from 1960 until 2018, reaching an all-time high of 274.03 USD Billion in 2018 and a record low of 4.27 USD Billion in 1960. The Gross Domestic Product per capita in Bangladesh was last recorded at 3879.20 US dollars in 2018, when adjusted by purchasing power parity (PPP). The GDP per Capita, in Bangladesh, when adjusted by Purchasing Power Parity is equivalent to 22 percent of the world's average. Bangladesh apparently is doing well. Yet apart from growing inequality in the distribution of income one would be well advised to bear in mind the dystopian pictures  drawn by MIT husband and wife team ( The Limits of Grwth-1972) of the world facing an “over shoot and collapse” by 2100 unless the world took seriously the environmental and resource issues. A recent meeting of experts have advised that Bangladesh needs to properly utilize its youth population now as the country's demographic dividend is fast waning, said a human resources expert yesterday.    By 2040, the demographic dividend will cease to exist as the number of aged people will increase.    So the country's young people need to be trained properly with the latest technologies so that they can be utilized for the country, he said.    The government allocated Tk 200crore for making young people skilled but a big gap exists between the education system and job market expectations for which most educated youth cannot be turned into human capital, he said.  

 For instance, Covid-19 was identified at Wuhan but China's business was not that affected and recovered faster compared to that in other countries for the presence of special kinds of human resources who could manage the fallouts, he said.    China was able to create a corporate culture with special human resources, he said while giving a virtual keynote presentation on "Human Capital - A Source of Competitive Advantage" organized by the American Chamber of Commerce in Bangladesh (AmCham).    Bangladesh's universities churn out 22,000 computer science and engineering graduates every year, said Syed Almas Kabir, president of the Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services.    But not all are skilled, he said, adding that for that they need three to six months' training.    This needs to be incorporated in the academic curriculum to save time, he said.    Bangladesh's human resources cannot still be termed human capital because the education system is still traditional, he added.    Almost 68 per cent of Bangladesh's population was between the ages of 15 and 64 years, which are considered the working age.        Bangladesh sees some 98 per cent of its children get enrolled at the elementary level but there was still room for improving the education quality.    The primary curriculum focuses some 14 per cent on technical education for the creation of skilled manpower (Daily Star 24 2021). 99,984,000 Internet users as of Mar, 2020;
60.7% of the population, according to Internet World Stats. India has the second highest number of internet users in the world.. The World Economic Forum (WEF) estimated that about 60% of Indian internet users viewed vernacular content and only about a quarter of internet users were over the age of 35 years in 2019. The WEF also estimated that 1.1 billion Indians would have access to the internet by 2030, with 80% of the subscriber base primarily accessing the internet on mobile devices.

The profile of India's internet user base was predicted to diversify by 2030 with 80% of users accessing vernacular content and with users over 25 years making up 45% of the total subscriber base. China replaced the U.S. in its global leadership in terms of installed telecommunication bandwidth in 2011. By 2014, China hosted more than twice as much national bandwidth potential than the U.S., the historical leader in terms of installed telecommunication bandwidth (China: 29% versus US:13% of the global total). As of March 2017, there were about 700 million Chinese internet users, and many of them have a high-speed internet connection. Most of the users live in urban areas but at least 178 million users reside in rural towns.

Yet it is useful to know the following facts: In China many websites and apps are blocked: Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube are restricted in China. Internet in China is extremely slow: Because of the filters and the blocking system, when one goes to non-Chinese websites, browsing becomes tedious due to the slow speed. If you only want to visit Chinese websites most internet connections work. Accessing the internet in China is relatively cheap: Although a few years ago the internet in China was relatively expensive, nowadays prices have fallen, and for a basic connection of 50 Mb you won’t pay more than 100 Yuan per month. Most public Chinese connections are not safe: One should be sure to have a good antivirus before connecting laptop to a public Chinese network if one does not want to end up with his computer full of rubbish or hacked. Despite these shortcomings China remains a strong competitor of the US both in politico-economic and technological fields. One however is at a loss when one has to finds oneself at a debate whether despite Xi Jinping’s Communist style of government China appears to be moving from communism to capitalism. If the Marxists arguments for inequality as described by some critics  “are an outcome of the ruling-class owning the means of production (the factories) who exploit their position when employing the working-class.    

By owning the means of production the ruling-class capitalize on the profits generated by their working-class employees     The ruling-classes exploit the working-classes by getting them to work as hard as possible for lowest wage possible.     The ruling-class then invests their profits in more plant and machinery to generate even more profits.  The outcome of such a process is social class inequality”.    One then faces a quandary in describing China as a communist or a capitalist country. Beijing proudly displays Western brands of consumer goods. China has many billionaires and a few of them are counted among the richest in the world. A Chinese reporter wrote in October last year that China added 257 billionaires in US dollar terms  adding to the existing 621, according to the annually released Hurun China Rich List on Tuesday (Oct. 20), which has been tracking the wealth of the ultra-rich for 22 years. Overall, China has 878 billionaires, the highest number the country has ever seen. As recently as 1999, there was not a single billionaire in China.     In total, China has 2,398 individuals with a net worth of more than 2 billion yuan ($290 million), the cut-off for being on the list. The rich listers have a combined wealth of $4 trillion, which is similar to the GDP of Germany, up from $2.6 trillion in 2019.     China first surpassed the US in the number of billionaires in 2015 and now has more of them than any country in the world, according to Hurun. The US now has around 700 billionaires.     “The world has never seen this much wealth created in just one year. China’s entrepreneurs have done much better than expected. Despite Covid-19 they have risen to record levels,” said Hurun chairman Rupert Hoogewerf a long-term Shanghai resident and the most well-known foreigner in China.. A number of new listings and stock markets booms have helped with the creation of new billionaires, he said.     Much of the wealth creation still lies within the tech sector.

Jack Ma, the former founder and CEO of Alibaba, retained his top spot in the list for the third consecutive year with a net worth of nearly $60 billion, up 45% from last year on the back of his fintech arm Ant Financial and the good performance of Alibaba. Pony Ma, the CEO of Alibaba’s strong rival Tencent, ranked second on the list with a net worth of $57.4 billion.     The results have painted a striking picture of China’s quick economic recovery from Covid-19. While critics wondered whether the outbreak would become China’s challenge amid mounting misery and discontent among citizens toward the government at the peak of the pandemic, Beijing has since got back on relatively solid ground due to strong arm in controlling the pandemic.    

China reported a 5% increase in GDP due to recoveries in industrial production and retail sales.  One important driver of the recovery came from the improvement of consumer confidence, with citizens now ready to go shopping and traveling again. Harvard’s Joseph Nye Jr writes (   What Could Cause a US-China War?      Mar 2, 2021JOSEPH S. NYE, Jr).          Even if China surpasses the US to become the world’s largest economy, national income is not the only measure of geopolitical power. China ranks well behind the US in soft power, and US military expenditure is nearly four times that of China. While Chinese military capabilities have been increasing in recent years, analysts who look carefully at the military balance conclude that China will not, say, be able to exclude the US from the Western Pacific.       On the other hand, the US was once the world’s largest trading economy and its largest bilateral lender. Today, nearly 100 countries count China as their largest trading partner, compared to 57 for the US. China plans to lend more than $1 trillion for infrastructure projects with its Belt and Road Initiative over the next decade, while the US has cut back aid.

China will gain economic power from the sheer size of its market as well as its overseas investments and development assistance. China’s overall power relative to the US is likely to increase.       Nonetheless, balances of power are hard to judge. The US will retain some long-term power advantages that contrast with areas of Chinese vulnerability.       One is geography. The US is surrounded by oceans and neighbors that are likely to remain friendly. China has borders with 14 countries, and territorial disputes with India, Japan, and Vietnam set limits on its hard and soft power.       Energy is another area where America has an advantage. President Joe Biden has already told his QUAD allies before the Alaska meeting that values shall remain the central theme of US-China differences. Chinese Foreign Minister’s 17 minutes bluster at Alaska replied by US Secretary of Defense was followed by Chinese actions.  Oxford University historian Rana Mitter in an insightful analysis wrote that under Xi, China has displayed a growing appetite for global leadership. Xi has stated that “China will firmly uphold the international system” as “a founding member of the United Nations and the first country to put its signature on the UN Charter.” As Mitter notes, Xi conveniently elides that it was Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader, and not Chiang’s Communist rival, Mao, who sat next to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the 1943 Cairo conference, which laid the groundwork for the postwar order. It was the Chinese Nationalists, not their Communist enemies, who helped establish the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  In China today, “the ideological cupboard is relatively bare,” Mitter observed. Under Xi, he writes, China is “still having a hard time defining its economic and security vision as anything other than an increasingly authoritarian not-America.”        

 Mitter’s assessment that China is a “postsocialist state in reality if not in name” is a refreshingly sober alternative to the Trump administration’s hyperbolic assertions that the CCP was seeking to bring about a “socialist international order” and a “globe-spanning universal society.” Those accusations relied on the fact that official Chinese rhetoric still uses phrases and concepts rooted in Marxism-Leninism.  RICHARD N. HAASS of the Council on Foreign Relations and.       CHARLES A. KUPCHAN of Georgetown University is suggesting the formation of a Concert of Global Powers consisting of China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and the United States. They argue that regular and open consultation between Moscow and Washington, for example, might have produced less friction over NATO enlargement. China and the United States are better off directly communicating with each other over Taiwan than sidestepping the issue and risking a military mishap in the Taiwan Strait or provocations that could escalate tensions.       A global concert could also make unilateral moves less disruptive. Conflicts of interest would hardly disappear, but a new vehicle devoted exclusively to great-power diplomacy would help make those conflicts more manageable. Although members would, in principle, endorse a norm-governed international order, they would also embrace realistic expectations about the limits of cooperation and compartmentalize their differences. The duo harshly characterizes Joseph Nye Jr jubilation over the extinction of Soviet Union as the unipolar moment is over, and in hindsight, talk of the “end of history” was triumphalist, even if sophisticated, nonsense. They sadly reach the conclusion that the inadequacies of the current international architecture underscore the need for a global concert. The rivalry between the United States and China is heating up fast, the world is suffering through a devastating pandemic, climate change is advancing, and the evolution of cyberspace poses new threats. These and other challenges mean that clinging to the status quo and banking on existing international norms and institutions would be dangerously naive.

The Concert of Europe was formed in 1815 owing to the years of devastation wrought by the Napoleonic Wars. But the lack of great-power war today should not be cause for complacency. And even though the world has passed through previous eras of multipolarity, the advance of globalization increases the demand for and importance of new approaches to global governance. Globalization unfolded during Pax Britannica, with London overseeing it until World War I. After a dark interwar hiatus, the United States took up the mantle of global leadership from World War II into the twenty-first century.       But Pax Americana is now running on fumes. The United States and its traditional democratic partners have neither the capability nor the will to anchor an interdependent international system and universalize the liberal order that they erected after World War II.

The absence of U.S. leadership during the covid-19 crisis was striking; each country was on its own. President Biden is guiding the United States back to being a team player, but the nation’s pressing domestic priorities and the onset of multipolarity will deny Washington the outsize influence it once enjoyed. Allowing the world to slide toward regional blocs or a two-bloc structure similar to that of the Cold War is a nonstarter. The United States, China, and the rest of the globe cannot fully uncouple when national economies, financial markets, and supply chains are irreversibly tethered together. A great-power steering group is the best option for managing an integrated world no longer overseen by a hegemon. A global concert fits the bill.   It is amazing that at a time when the world is embroiled in  internecine  and extraneous struggles  such a dream can be dreamt. They themselves agree that Pax Sinica is also a nonstarter.

 For the foreseeable future, China will have neither the capability nor the ambition to anchor a global order . The world should be clear about its post-covit task. The struggle between democracy and illiberalism has to be fought on all fronts. Kim Jong ill cannot be allowed to play his game by frightening others. Those who can put pressure on him to stop his game and not be by stander. Other illiberal regimes in Europe and Africa have to change their course. All these tasks before the world should be done through pressure where necessary and discussions. Otherwise it will not be covit but the Third World War will see the end of mankind.

(The writer is a former Ambassador and secretary in Banglasdesh)

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

SOUTH ASIA ANALYSIS GROUP

 

Can China Ever Be an Alternative?

Paper No. 6765                                Dated 14-Mar-2021

By Kazi Anwarul Masud

  Decades back when the US reigned supreme in the aftermath of the Second World War, given both the political, moral and economic character that the world, many parts were yet under colonial rule, must follow, none had the courage including the European allies whose interests coincided with those of the US, to oppose the dictat.

The Americans had an easy acceptance of their views because these were based on democratic principles and consultations among the Europeans whose overseas colonies were not yet threatened. Indian politician Shashi Tharoor described Winston Churchill as having as much blood on his hands as the worst genocidal dictators. Dr Shashi Tharoor, whose book Inglorious Empire chronicles the atrocities Union, onslaught of pandemic with no clear sign of its abatement, turbulence in the of the British Empire, argued the former British Prime Minister’s reputation as a great wartime leader and protector of freedom as wholly miscast given his role in the Bengal famine which saw four million Bengalis starve to death. In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.  

India at that time was fighting for its independence, a peaceful non-cooperation  movement under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi( described by Churchill as “ alarming and also nauseating to see Mr. Gandhi, a seditious middle temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half-naked up the steps of the vice regal palace, while he is still organizing and conducting a defiant campaign of civil disobedience, to parley on equal terms with the representative of the king-emperor."

Despite many  being imprisoned many times by the British, India won its independence in 1947. Why one may ask did the British and other colonial powers agree to relinquish their grip on the colonies which promoted their development with the colonies’ abundant resources? Perhaps the most compelling factor was Monroe Doctrine. In a speech to Congress in 1823, President James Monroe warned European powers not to attempt further colonization or otherwise interfere in the Western Hemisphere, stating that the United States would view any such interference as a potentially hostile act. Later known as the Monroe Doctrine, this policy principle would become a cornerstone of U.S. diplomacy for generations. From time to time later, US Presidents took refuge of the Monroe Doctrine.

 Most importantly, President John Kennedy warned then Soviet Union to withdraw its nuclear weapons from Cuba. President John Kennedy ordered a naval and air quarantine of Cuba after the Soviet Union began building missile-launching sites there. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan similarly used the 1823 policy principle to justify U.S. intervention in El Salvador and Nicaragua, while his successor, George H.W. Bush, similarly sanctioned a U.S. invasion of Panama to oust Manuel Noriega.

But now changed definition of national security demise of Soviet global market, US China uneasy relationship Monroe Doctrine is no longer the defining criteria of national security. Rise of China as a political and economic power in the world has complicated the twin competition between the US and then Soviet Union for global influence. In simple term the fight centered on democratic and non-democratic forms of government. The US and her allies were democratic while the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. A third force of newly freed colonies formed the Non-aligned Movement to register their independence from the two blocs. 

1955 Non-aligned Movement held in Bandung Indonesia that brought together, U Nu, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Pandit Jawharlal Nehru, Marshall Tito, Kwame Nkruma, Ho Chi Minh, Zhou Enlai, as well as U Thant and Indira Gandhi was perhaps the largest assembly of world leaders who shaped the destiny of the world for many years to come. Bandung Conference   adopted a "declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation and a collective pledge to remain neutral in great power rivalry.

 Non-aligned Movement (NAM) lost much of its relevance with the demise of the Soviet Union.  More emphasis was given to economic development of member states and national security started getting new meaning. One such meaning is given by emphasis on economic development sometimes putting democracy at riskTo understand alliances today, we need first to understand how we got here. Thucydides tells us that alliances have been an enduring feature of war and conflict for thousands of years.   Multilateral military arrangements allow states (and their historical analogues) to aggregate their capabilities and collaborate on common security challenges…. security challenges;  multilateral military organizations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance itself (Kathleen Mclnnis - Nonresident Senior Fellow of Atlantic Council).  

Ryan Haas tells his readers that China is not ten feet tall. It is becoming China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people. Transnational threat groups, from jihadist terrorists to transnational criminal organizations, are actively trying to harm Americans.

While these challenges differ in nature and magnitude, they are fundamentally contests between those who value human dignity and freedom and those who oppress individuals and enforce uniformity….. Contemporary international organizations and alliances are often formed without the specific goal of collaboratively conducting military operations, and when international organizations or other institutions do decide to undertake multilateral military operations, they often do so utilizing a subset of their membership. Not all NATO members have participated in all of NATO’s post–Cold War operations.  Today, this U.S.-led hub-and-spoke system includes a variety of different strategic arrangements, most of which do not fit commonly accepted definitions of alliances.

These arrangements include:       International institutions, such as the United Nations Security Council and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), to contend with a military and economic force because of the system of governance. ArthuSchelenger Jr explains : contrary to the conventional wisdom, India stagnated historically not because it was a democracy, but because, in the 1970s and 1980s, it was less democratic than it appeared.  The economic consequences of this period of illiberalism were long lasting.

Many contrast India’s experience with that of China, implying that its economic success is derived from “an efficient, massive, and rapid embrace of the global economy” by a closed communist regime. But…the idea that China grew because of its one-party rule stems from a mistaken focus on a single snapshot in time at the expense of an understanding of shifting trends. China did not take off because it was authoritarian. Rather, it took off because the liberal political reforms of the 1980s made the country less authoritarian. As scholar Minxin Pei has noted, every single important political reform—such as the mandatory retirement of government officials, the strengthening of the National People’s Congress, legal reforms, experiments in rural self-government, and loosening control of civil society groups—was instituted in the 1980s. As happens with all autocracy cracks start within the ranks of the highest body though everyone has to be member of the Communist Party. Thus a plutocracy is born and tussles for power begins within.

An expert whose knowledge is regarded by many (The Party That Failed: An Insider Breaks With Beijing By Cai Xia January/February 2021) has observed that “Over the course of his tenure, the regime has degenerated further into a political oligarchy bent on holding on to power through brutality and ruthlessness. It has grown even more repressive and dictatorial.

A personality cult now surrounds Xi, who has tightened the party’s grip on ideology and eliminated what little space there was for political speech and civil society. People who haven’t lived in mainland China for the past eight years can hardly understand how brutal the regime has become, how many quiet tragedies it has authored. After speaking out against the system, I learned it was no longer safe for me to live in China”. Going back from  the period   Xi Jingpin when Deng Ziaoping  was in power he declared: - The party had to represent three aspects of China: “the development requirements of advanced productive forces,” cultural progress, and the interests of the majority.

This was regarded as a significant shift in CCP ideology. In particular, the first of the Three Represents implied that Jiang was abandoning the core Marxist belief that capitalists were an exploitative social group. The emergence of Xi Jinping as the supreme leader of China despite reports of internal power struggle does not appear to harm Chinese rise as a super power. A lifelong communist and an important functionary has observed “Over the course of his tenure, the regime has degenerated further into a political oligarchy bent on holding on to power through brutality and ruthlessness. It has grown even more repressive and dictatorial. A personality cult now surrounds Xi, who has tightened the party’s grip on ideology and eliminated what little space there was for political speech and civil society.

One wonders how far the character of the absolute leader contributes to national and international   events. Did Kaiser Wilhelm II cause the First World War (assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand aside)? Did Adolf Hitler’s unbending attitude prolonged the Second Great War? Did the 9/11 attack on New York goaded George W Bush’s determination to take revenge influence his Middle East policy?  Did Donald Trump’s declaration at his inauguration to make “America First” contribute to US-China trade war which President Joe Biden would have difficulty to contain?

Character does play an important role in international affairs. The international community however may remain edgy watching the Great Powers tussle lest they fall into Thucydides Trap that caused Peloponnesian war due to Sparta’s fear of a rising Athens. Such an eventuality is remote in democracy but may be a possibility in total autocracy. One may recall the words of then Secretary of Defense from 1973 to 1975 under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford

 James Schlesinger during the cold war warned  that Soviet Union should not be seen through “Ten Foot Tall Syndrome’. Schlesinger believed that the theory and practice of the 1950s and 1960s had been overtaken by events, particularly the rise of the Soviet Union to virtual nuclear parity with the United States.  Schlesinger believed that "deterrence is not a substitute for defense; but the potential for effective counteraction, are the essential condition of deterrence.''

The demise of the Soviet Union has not ended the struggle for supremacy of global affairs. On the contrary the rise of China has thwarted the aspiration of the US to remain supreme in global affairs. Many analysts think growth could be as high as 9% in 2021, up from last year’s 2.3%. But the government is, publicly at least, setting its sights lower. Barring any major setbacks, that should be achievable. China would still reach 6% year-on-year growth for 2021 as a whole. The target of 6% growth is conservative. China’s rise is enviable but not without thorns for Xi Jinping on his way to be the emulated successor of  Mao Zedong.

As an analyst pointed out although the Chinese economy has grown almost twelvefold over the past two decades, there have been repeated threats of a cascading debt crisis since he rose to power in 2012. In this context, Trump’s declaration of a trade war affected not only the Chinese economy but also Xi’s political standing.  It also helped Donald Trump secure the Presidency as the slogan Trade Wars Are Class Wars, made a direct connection between international confrontation and rising domestic inequality within the world’s largest economies.              Specifically, the critics argued   that because Communist Party of China (CPC) elites chose to constrain domestic consumption and boost exports, US manufacturers suffered, and their displaced and disaffected workers then mobilized to deliver Trump the presidency in 2016.

Ironically China which is now a plutocracy Chinese Revolution came about as a revolt against foreign domination and feudalism. In 1978, almost 100 percent of China’s economic output came from the public sector; that figure has now dropped to less than 20 percent.   China’s astronomical growth has produced  massive increase in inequality. From 1985 to 2010, the country’s Gini coefficient leapt from 0.30 to around 0.50—higher than that of the United States and closer to the levels found in Latin America. Inequality in China has risen starkly within both rural and urban areas, and it has risen even more so in the country as a whole because of the increasing gap between those areas.

That growing inequality is evident in every divide—between rich and poor provinces, high-skilled workers and low-skilled workers, men and women, and the private sector and the state sector.           Notably, there has also been an increase in China in the share of income from privately owned capital, which seems to be as concentrated there as in the advanced market economies of the West. A new capitalist elite has formed in China (Jerrry Z Muller-Catholic University of America-Washington D.C.).   Is Chinese threat new or its style of governance is not the product of thousands of years of autocratic rule?

A recent example can be found in, the evidence of the atrocities that China has committed against Uyghurs. Over one million Uyghurs and other Muslim peoples in the western Chinese region of Xinjiang are in mass internment camps, prisons, and other penal institutions where they are subjected to psychological stress, torture, and, as recently reported of systematic rape.  China was least worried about such reports and Chinese Foreign Minister dismissed it as propaganda against China’s success in economic sphereAt the National People’s Congress, an annual rubber-stamp parliament Chinese Prime Minister announced that China would target a fiscal deficit of 3.2% of GDP this year, down from last year’s 3.6%. China’s true fiscal deficit will be about 12% of GDP, compared with a record high of 15% last year. That is a retrenchment, but still higher than its deficit in 2019, of roughly 10% of GDP. Many analysts believed that growth could be as high as 9% and therefore the government’s estimate of 6% growth was conservative.

To the Chinese, President Bill Clinton turned out to be better than his other predecessors.  In his second term, Congress granted China permanent trading privileges, and Clinton began the process of negotiating for China’s admission to the World Trade Organization, which happened in 2001. Throughout successive Administrations, the U.S. mostly followed a strategy of engagement with China. Even President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” policy, which was intended to counter China’s growing influence in the region, seemed to have little real effect.

Donald Trump’s China bashing infuriated the Chinese particularly his accusation of Chinese concealment of covet in Wuhan province from the WHO and the world. USA till today is the worst affected country in the world in terms of death, people infected by the disease and in all other criteria. During Trump his Deputy National Security Advisor Mathew Pottinger and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien advised President Trump that it was the greatest national security threat to Trump Presidency and far more serious than SARS that killed 50 million people worldwide and advised complete travel ban from and to China.

After Trump’s chaotic foreign policy pursuit President Joe Biden in addressing the State Department said: America’s alliances are our greatest asset, and leading with diplomacy means standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies and key partners once again. By leading with diplomacy, we must also mean engaging our adversaries and our competitors diplomatically, where it’s in our interest, and advance the security of the American people. He pointedly mentioned China and said: American leadership must meet this new moment of advancing authoritarianism, including the growing ambitions of China to rival the United States and the determination of Russia to damage and disrupt our democracy.

Undoubtedly China’s power is growing. Today, writes Harvard’s Joseph Nye Jr,  nearly 100 countries count China as their largest trading partner, compared to 57 for the US. China plans to lend more than $1 trillion for infrastructure projects with its Belt and Road Initiative over the next decade, while the US has cut back aid. China will gain economic power from the sheer size of its market as well as its overseas investments and development assistance. China’s overall power relative to the US is likely to increase. Yet the US has no reason to believe in Ten Feet Syndrome for China. It will take many tears for China to catch up with the US both militarily, US military expenditure is four times that of China,   

Economically, by the end of 2020, IMF forecasts that China GDP will reach $15.5 trillion, whereas the US GDP will reach $22.3 trillion. IMF forecasts China GDP per capita to reach $10,971 in 2020. This will still be less than that of the US GDP per capita in 1980, which was $12,553. Despite Sino-US rivalry the possibility of a conflict between the two is remote. Even though China is ahead of US in GDP Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), China GDP PPP per capita is still one-third of that of the US. The problem however remains as pointed out by Singaporean Prime Minister (The Endangered Asian Century America, China, and the Perils of Confrontation By Lee Hsien Loong July/August 2020relates to the troubled U.S.-Chinese relationship that raises profound questions about Asia’s future and the shape of the emerging international order. Southeast Asian countries, including Singapore, are especially concerned, as they live at the intersection of the interests of various major powers and must avoid being caught in the middle or forced into invidious choices. Lee Hsien Loong advises the two powers “must work out a modus vivendi that will be competitive in some areas without allowing rivalry to poison cooperation in others.      

Asian countries see the United States as a resident power that has vital interests in the region. At the same time, China is a reality on the doorstep. Asian countries do not want to be forced to choose between the two. And if either attempts to force such a choice—if Washington tries to contain China’s rise or Beijing seeks to build an exclusive sphere of influence in Asia—they will begin a course of confrontation that will last decades and put the long-heralded Asian century in jeopardy”.  Lee Hsien Loong added the obvious that the prime driver of the prosperity of the free world has been the US open market, its rule based economic system, and its practice of democracy.

 It is inconceivable that Xi Jinping’s autocracy can ever be an alternative

(The author is a former Ambassador and Secretary in the Foreign Ministry of Bangadesh)

 

Tags: